happytoexplain

You'll have to start with changing the mission statement at the bottom of your page to remove the term "AI".

I think this is a good idea, but why is "AI" in quotes? It's a pretty obvious/straightforward property to be praised or criticised.

This is easily one of the most egregious examples of the "same people" fallacy I've seen on HN.

It makes me feel actually sick that so many people can't separate their positive feelings about AI from people's misery (it must simply be "complaining"), and vice versa. As if both things can't exist, for some reason. It's a common tribalism problem, but it's been kicked up a hundredfold by AI.

Is this going around in other places today, or does posting something to HN qualify as "hype"?

It's unclear why you're arguing for this. We already know about the downsides of low-regulation capitalism. They're still downsides, and we may reasonably continue to talk about them as such.

There's a whole genre of comment like this where the implication is that if some effect is either predictable or inevitable by the nature of large in-place systems, then individuals are somehow not allowed to criticize the people choosing to enact the effects.

We all have free will. Just because you can legally make money being annoying or otherwise shitty, and if you didn't do it then somebody else would, that carries absolutely no implication that nobody is allowed to judge you for making that choice.

Criticisms of the format, "the same people", are virtually always irrational/tribalistic, and based on the "invented enemy" internet trope that happens when interpreting groups of people as being one person. I'd like to leave such common tropes outside of HN.

This is the opposite of logical. Missteps and corrections are a sign of conscientiousness, not "making it up".

If somebody always gets everything right in your opinion, you should be suspicious of your own values, not of the people who don't achieve constant perfection.

In any other context I would agree with you, but in software, the point the author is making is quite true.

MS would include superfluous icons because they observe it in other software and can't think for themselves, or they would omit superfluous icons because it never occurred to them in the first place.

Everything Apple does is carefully considered, good and bad.

I take the latter every time, because I understand how bad things are in software. I know it's unrealistic to be as choosy as I want to be.

Do not address people in this way. You are contributing to the exact problem we're talking about (how easy it is for information to turn out to be wrong).

Simply provide the new information, rather than snarkily implying that the parent is some kind of asshole. Save that for the normal internet.

It's embarrassing. Instead, they tell themselves, "well, it could have just as easily been real."

This has always been the case.

However, the more interesting thing going on is that we have never had to reckon with this problem anywhere near as much as we do now, since the barrier to creating fakes has been reduced from "skilled, motivated software user" to "all five billion humans who can write".

Edit: I think this comment is neutral enough to stand even under the new information that this might have been a cries-wolf situation, but I am acknowledging the fact.

Ha, I know you have to shorten the headline for HN, but you probably should either squeeze in "photographer", or change "capturing" to "Photographing".

>I suspect that many of the loudest voices pushing back against AI coding tools never practiced programming as a hobby or saw it as especially fun, and the fact their job is changing won't make them start now.

This makes no sense. Everybody I know, including me, who hates the big picture of what AI has done loves programming immensely and does it as a hobby as well as a job. The people at my job who are most positive about AI are those who didn't particularly enjoy programming. You're applying Occam's Razor backwards.

Essentially every technical person I know.